LAWS(BOM)-1943-7-13

KEDARNATH HIMATSINGKA Vs. PRABHABATI SAHEBA

Decided On July 08, 1943
KEDARNATH HIMATSINGKA Appellant
V/S
PRABHABATI SAHEBA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are consolidated appeals from two separate but identical orders of the High Court of Judicature at Patna dated January 23, 1939, and January 26, 1939, respectively in Civil Revision No.563 of 1938, and Miscellaneous Appeal No.89 of 1932, which affirmed the order of the Subordinate Judge of Dumka dated August 15, 1938.

(2.) THE appellant before the Board is the Receiver appointed by a consent order of the High Court dated December 23, 1932, in Consolidated Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 89-93 of 1932, of a Ghatwali tenure known as the Hendwe Estate held by respondent No.10, the proprietress of the said estate under the Banaili Raj, represented by respondents Nos. 1 to9.

(3.) THE relationship between the Banaili Raj and the Hendwe Estate is that of landlord and tenant with this difference, that the holders of the Hendwe Estate hold it on Government Ghatwali tenure, and as such, the estate is not liable to be sold in execution of a decree for rent, though deliberate and persistent default on the part of the Ghatwal to pay rent may constitute misconduct in relation to his office, for which he is liable to dismissal by Government see Rani Sonobati Kumari v. Raja Kirtya nmd Singh (1934) I.L.R. 14 Pat. 70, 206. Respondent No.10 is the life-holder of the Hendwe Estate, holding it under the Banaili Raj at an annual rent of about Rs. 12,000. As the rent was in arrear, the Banaili Raj instituted four suits against respondent No.10 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bhagalpur and also a suit for declaration that the estate is liable to sale for default in payment of rent. On September 19, 1930, the suits were decreed. THE arrears of rent decreed amounted to about Rs. 1,16,000 besides interest and costs. Respondent No.10 filed appeals Nos. 19 to 23 of 1931 in the High Court of Patna against the said decrees. Meanwhile, the Raj took out execution of the decrees, whereupon respondent No.10 preferred miscellaneous appeals Nos. 89 to 93 of 1932 in the High Court, which were all consolidated.